[WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of "vandalism"?!

Tue May 31 19:03:29 UTC 2005

Kat, 

Thank you for unblocking me. It's good to know that at least one admin has a sense of fairness here. It is very frustrating as a newbie to be told to jump right in and to "be bold!" with editing, but then to be blocked for not having known the rules. I wasn't even aware beforehand that there was a "neutral point of view" rule.

When I get a chance I'll try to read through the rules in order to understand how I can be allowed to make changes to the parts which I don't think are at all "neutral" in the entry as it was (even before I tried editing it). 

-advert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kat Walsh [mailto:mindspillage at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005, 4:41 PM
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
> 	"vandalism"?!
> 
> On 5/30/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > advert stated for the record:
> > 
> > > I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective
> to the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is
> "neutral".
> > 
> > Your edits were not vandalism, but they were not acceptable.  Stating as
> > a fact that "[p]ornography ... is the representation of the human body
> > or [[human sexual behaviour]] mainly from a male supremacist
> > perspective" is highly opinionated.  That statement represents an
> > extreme point of view that most editors and readers will not agree with
> > and will quickly edit away.
> > 
> > Something along the lines of "many feminists feel that pornography
> > represents a male supremacist perspective" would be slightly better, but
> > would require a definition of "male supremacist perspective."
> > 
> > Also, we are not interested in your personal definitions of
> > "pornography" and "erotica."  If those definitions were created
> > elsewhere, please provide references.
> > 
> > You may want to suggest changes on the article's talk page and ask for
> > help in wording them so as to conform to the (obligatory) neutral point
> > of view.
> 
> Looking at the page history and the block log, I am going to unblock
> this user. I don't think s/he was adequately warned, and we can't
> expect all newbies to know about restrictions on edit warring without
> being informed. (However, advert, you've now been informed: discuss
> big changes to contentious articles on talk, always, and more than 3
> reverts in one day will merit a 24-hour block; further advice will be
> left on user talk page.)
> 
> I'm all for blocking deliberate vandals, but this appears to be
> editing made in good faith, just without knowledge of policy.
> 
> -Kat
> [[User:Mindspillage]]
> 
> -- 
> http://www.mindspillage.net *** IM: LucidWaking
> "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily 
> escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l